62144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Notices 

exemption for a renewable two-year 

period. They are: 

Calvin D. Atwood. 

Gregory W. Babington. 

Andrew B. Clayton. 

William P. Doolittle. 

Steve E. Duran. 

Michael M. Edleston. 

Kenneth J. Fisk. 

Jonathan M. Gentry. 

Benny D. Hatton, Jr. 

Robert W. Healey, Jr. 

Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr. 

Thomas W. Markham. 

Raul Martinez. 

Christian E. Merseth. 

Stuart T. Miller. 

Robert A. Miller. 

Kevin L. Moody. 

Terry W. Moore. 

Charles W. Mullenix. 

Robert M. Pickett II 

Donald F. Plouf. 

John N. Poland. 

Billy D. Robertson. 

Gerry L. Rogers. 

Gary W. Wolff. 

John C. Young. 

George R. Zenor. 

The exemptions are extended subject 

to the following conditions: (1) That 

each individual has a physical 

examination every year (a) By an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provides a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file and retains a copy of the 

certification on his/her person while 

driving for presentation to a duly 

authorized Federal, State, or local 

enforcement official. Each exemption 

will be valid for two years unless 

rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The 

exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The 

person fails to comply with the terms 

and conditions of the exemption; (2) the 

exemption has resulted in a lower level 

of safety than was maintained before it 

was granted; or (3) continuation of the 

exemption would not be consistent with 

the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315. 

Basis for Renewing Exemptions 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an 

exemption may be granted for no longer 

than two years from its approval date 

and may be renewed upon application 

for additional two year periods. In 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315, each of the 27 applicants has 

satisfied the entry conditions for 

obtaining an exemption from the vision 

requirements (66 FR 30502; 66 FR 

41654; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 

48989; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 

42615; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 

61493; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 

39879; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 40360; 72 FR 

46261; 72 FR 52421; 72 FR 54971; 72 FR 

54972; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR 

43223; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 

41971; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 49069). Each 

of these 27 applicants has requested 

renewal of the exemption and has 

submitted evidence showing that the 

vision in the better eye continues to 

meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) and that the vision 

impairment is stable. In addition, a 

review of each record of safety while 

driving with the respective vision 

deficiencies over the past two years 

indicates each applicant continues to 

meet the vision exemption standards. 

These factors provide an adequate basis 

for predicting each driver’s ability to 

continue to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Therefore, FMCSA 

concludes that extending the exemption 

for each renewal applicant for a period 

of two years is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. 

Request for Comments 

FMCSA will review comments 

received at any time concerning a 

particular driver’s safety record and 

determine if the continuation of the 

exemption is consistent with the 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315. However, FMCSA requests that 

interested parties with specific data 

concerning the safety records of these 

drivers submit comments by November 

7, 2011. 

FMCSA believes that the 

requirements for a renewal of an 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315 can be satisfied by initially 

granting the renewal and then 

requesting and evaluating, if needed, 

subsequent comments submitted by 

interested parties. As indicated above, 

the Agency previously published 

notices of final disposition announcing 

its decision to exempt these 27 

individuals from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final 

decision to grant an exemption to each 

of these individuals was made on the 

merits of each case and made only after 

careful consideration of the comments 

received to its notices of applications. 

The notices of applications stated in 

detail the qualifications, experience, 

and medical condition of each applicant 

for an exemption from the vision 

requirements. That information is 

available by consulting the above cited 

Federal Register publications. 

Interested parties or organizations 

possessing information that would 

otherwise show that any, or all, of these 

drivers are not currently achieving the 

statutory level of safety should 

immediately notify FMCSA. The 

Agency will evaluate any adverse 

evidence submitted and, if safety is 

being compromised or if continuation of 

the exemption would not be consistent 

with the goals and objectives of 49 

U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will 

take immediate steps to revoke the 

exemption of a driver. 

Issued on: September 27, 2011. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator of Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25847 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Implementation of Passenger Rail 

Service Between Tucson, AZ and 

Phoenix, AZ 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The FRA and FTA are issuing 

this Notice of Intent (NOI) to advise 

other agencies and the public that they 

will jointly prepare an EIS to study the 

implementation of passenger rail service 

between Tucson, Arizona and Phoenix, 

Arizona and to serve communities in 

between the two metropolitan areas (the 

proposed action). 

The FRA, FTA, and Arizona 

Department of Transportation (ADOT) 

will use a tiered process, as described in 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) at 40 CFR 1502.20 

and 1508.28 (NEPA) and FTA’s 

environmental procedures at 23 CFR 

771.111(g) and 774.7. This EIS is the 

first planning-level tier of the two-tiered 

environmental review process for the 

proposed action. 

FRA and FTA are issuing this Notice 

to alert interested parties, to solicit 

public and agency input on the scope of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Notices 62145 

the Tier 1 EIS, provide information on 

the nature of the proposed project, 

including the purpose and need for the 

proposed action, possible alternatives to 

be considered in the preparation of the 

Tier 1 EIS, potentially significant 

impacts to the natural and built 

environment of those alternatives, and 

invite public participation in the EIS 

process. 

The Tier 1 EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, 

the FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts as set forth in 64 

FR 28545 dated May 26, 1999 

(Environmental Procedures), and FTA’s 

Environmental Impact and Related 

Procedures, in 23 CFR part 771. The EIS 

will also address Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 

303) and other applicable Federal and 

state laws and regulations to the extent 

relevant for a planning-level Tier-1 

document. In addition, the Tier 1 study 

will incorporate the alternatives 

analyses process required by Federal 

transit law (49 U.S.C. 5309) and 

regulation (49 CFR part 611) for a 

project proposed for New Starts 

funding. 

Environmental Review Process: The 

FRA and FTA will use a tiered process, 

as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28 and 

in accordance with FRA guidance, in 

the completion of the environmental 

review of the proposed action. ‘‘Tiering’’ 

is a staged environmental review 

process applied to environmental 

reviews for complex projects. The Tier 

1 EIS will address broad corridor-level 

issues and alternatives. Subsequent tiers 

will analyze site-specific component 

projects and alternatives based on the 

decisions made in Tier 1. 

Tier 1: The Tier 1 assessment will 

result in a NEPA document with the 

appropriate level of detail for corridorlevel decisions and will address broad 

overall issues of concern, including but 

not limited to: 

• Confirming the purpose and need 

for the proposed action. 

• Confirming the study area 

appropriate to assess reasonable 

alternatives. 

• Developing evaluation criteria to 

identify alternatives that meet the 

purpose and need of the proposed 

action and those that do not. 

• Identifying the range of reasonable 

alternatives to be considered, including 

the no action alternative, consistent 

with the current and planned use of the 

corridor and the existing services within 

and adjacent to the study area. 

• Identifying the general alignment(s) 

of the reasonable alternatives. 

• Identifying right-of-way 

requirements for the reasonable 

alternatives. 

• Identifying the infrastructure and 

equipment investment requirements for 

the reasonable alternatives. 

• Specifying the future no-build 

alternative that reflects already planned 

highway and transit developments in 

the study area expected to be in place 

by the project design year. 

• Specifying the New Starts baseline 

alternative that addresses the proposed 

action’s purpose and need to the 

maximum extent possible without a 

new transit fixed guideway. 

• Identifying the operational changes 

required for the reasonable alternatives. 

• Describing and evaluating the 

potential environmental impacts and 

mitigation associated with the proposed 

alternatives in the level of detail 

appropriate for a Tier 1 EIS. 

• Establishing the timing and 

sequencing of independent actions to 

implement the proposed action. 

• Evaluating the transit alternatives 

under the New Starts criteria specified 

in 49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611. 

The transit alternatives may be subsets 

of the full build alternatives that 

provide intercity rail service. 

• Identifying the Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA), FTA’s planning level 

alternative for the New Starts program, 

through an Alternatives Analysis 

process. 

Tier 2: The Tier 2 assessments will 

not be included in this study but will be 

identified as future actions to address 

components of the planning level 

alternative selected at the conclusion of 

the Tier 1 EIS. 

This Tier 1 EIS preparation will 

include initial planning level elements 

of a Service Development Plan; present 

corridor route alternatives; and provide 

conceptual engineering designs of track, 

ancillary facilities, stations, and other 

major design features to a level 

sufficient to allow for meaningful 

understanding and comparison of 

alternatives. The Tier 1 EIS will provide 

programmatic assessment of 

environmental effects associated with 

the construction, operation, and 

maintenance components of the 

proposed action. The Tier 1 EIS will 

evaluate a range of reasonable corridorlevel alternatives to include the 

‘‘Baseline Conditions’’ and ‘‘No Action’’ 

Alternatives. Build alternatives may 

occur along existing rail line(s) or may 

be on a new alignment. The EIS will 

provide for: (1) An FTA-compliant 

Alternatives Analysis and (2) an FTAcompliant Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

DATES: Public Scoping meetings will be 

held on the following dates, locations, 

and times: 

October 11, 2011 in the Burton Barr 

Central Library, 1221 N. Central 

Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, from 3 p.m. to 7 

p.m.; 

October 13, 2011 in the Pima 

Community College, Northwest 

Campus, 7600 North Shannon Road, 

Tucson, AZ, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.; and 

October 19, 2011 in the Central 

Arizona College, Signal Peak Campus, 

8470 N. Overfield Road, Coolidge, AZ 

from 3 p.m. to 7. 

The buildings used for the meetings 

are accessible to persons with 

disabilities. Any individual who 

requires special assistance, such as a 

sign language interpreter, to participate 

in the meetings should contact Kristin 

Bornstein at KDA Creative, telephone 

(602) 368–9644, five days prior to the 

meeting. 

To ensure all significant issues are 

identified and considered, the public 

will be invited to comment on the 

proposed action. Comments by members 

of the public on the scope of the Tier 1 

EIS, including the proposed action’s 

purpose and need, the alternatives to be 

considered, the impacts to be evaluated, 

and the methodologies to be used in the 

evaluations will be accepted at the 

public scoping meetings. Those 

attending the public scoping meetings 

will be asked to register at the meeting 

location. At the meeting, comments may 

also be submitted in written form, or 

orally one-on-one to a stenographer. 

Interested parties may also submit their 

comments in writing or via email to the 

persons identified below, on or before 

November 4, 2011. 

For Further Information Regarding the 

Scoping Meetings, Please Contact: 

Ms. Kristin Bornstein, KDA Creative, 

4545 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 210, Phoenix, 

AZ 85028, telephone (602) 368–9644, email Kristin@kdacreative.com. 

Information and documents regarding 

the environmental review process will 

also be made available through 

appropriate means, including the 

project Web site: http://www.azdot.gov/ 

intercityrail. 

For Further Information About the 

Project Contact: 

Ms. Andrea Martin, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, 

SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 

20590, telephone (202) 493–6201; 

Ms. Amy Zaref, telephone (202) 641– 

8050 or Mr. Alex Smith, Federal 

Transit Administration Region 9, 201 

Mission St., Suite 1650, San 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

62146 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Notices 

Francisco, CA 94105, telephone (415) 

744–3133. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Description of Project Area 

The study area is located within the 

Sun Corridor region, an area defined by 

the limits of three contiguous Arizona 

counties: Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima. In 

2011, the area is characterized by urban 

densities at the northern and southern 

limits of the study area (Phoenix 

Metropolitan Area in Maricopa County 

and Tucson Metropolitan Area in Pima 

County, respectively) and smaller, rural 

communities located between these 

urban centers (primarily located in Pinal 

County). Historic rapid employment and 

population growth throughout the 

region is well-documented. In general, 

the growing regional, intercity, and 

commuter travel demand generated by 

the historic growth has been 

accommodated by an automobiledominated surface transportation 

network anchored by Interstate 10—the 

primary contiguous high capacity 

facility in the region. Additional surface 

transportation facilities include rural 

state routes such as State Route 79, and 

local roadway networks serving the 

cities and communities in the study 

area. There are no public transportation 

services that directly connect the 

Phoenix and Tucson urban centers. 

Mobility between these cities is 

predominantly served by private 

automobile; additionally, commercial 

air service and private bus/shuttle 

services are available. 

II. Identification for Project Need 

In March 2010 the ADOT completed 

the Statewide Transportation Planning 

Framework study. This study concluded 

that Arizona cannot address future 

congestion by continuing to rely almost 

exclusively on roadways to move 

people. High capacity services such as 

rail offer an efficient and attractive form 

of transportation to move people and 

the Tier 1 EIS will investigate passenger 

rail as a viable transportation solution. 

Existing and future travel patterns, 

existing transit services, travel times, 

and population growth in the study area 

all demonstrate an existing as well as an 

evolving mobility need. The mobility 

need clearly indicates five study area 

markets where demand exists or will 

exist in the reasonably foreseeable 

future: 

(1) Intercity mobility between the 

Tucson and Phoenix Metropolitan 

Areas. 

(2) Commuter mobility between 

Phoenix and nearby suburban 

communities within Maricopa County. 

(3) Commuter mobility between 

Tucson and nearby suburban 

communities within Pima County. 

(4) Commuter mobility between 

activity centers in Pinal County and the 

Phoenix Metropolitan Area. 

(5) Commuter mobility between 

activity centers in Pinal County and the 

Tucson Metropolitan Area. 

Current travel conditions are 

represented by the following: 

Travel demand in the Sun Corridor 

historically has been significant. Over 

51,000 daily trips occurred on two 

north-south roads, Interstate 10 (I–10) 

and State Route 79 (SR 79) in 2008. 

Twenty-two percent of the daily vehicle 

traffic on these roads completed a 

commute-type trip, i.e., departing from 

and returning to the same location. 

From 2006 to 2008, daily inter-county 

commute trips within the three counties 

exceeded 75,000. Daily commute trips 

from Maricopa to Pima numbered 2,980, 

and commute trips in the reverse 

direction numbered 2,260. The 

commute from Pinal County to 

Maricopa County represented about 68 

percent of all inter-county commute 

trips (51,625), with the second most 

desired trip (13,265) being in the reverse 

direction, between Maricopa and Pinal 

counties, representing about 18 percent 

of all inter-county commute trips. By 

2050, as Pinal County’s employment 

grows significantly, these latter figures 

are expected to increase accordingly. 

In 2011, the only modes of surface 

transportation available for travel 

between Phoenix and Tucson and the 

area in between are private auto or 

common carrier (bus); with the majority 

of commuter, regional, and intercity 

travel using I–10 and SR 79. Despite 

recent widening of sections of I–10 in 

the study area, the interstate still 

experiences well-documented 

increasing durations of severe 

congestion and failed operation. 

Need for Intercity Mobility 

The 2050 projected travel demand in 

the Sun Corridor is expected to have a 

substantial adverse effect on the Sun 

Corridor’s surface transportation 

network. A comparison of 2010 travel 

times with those modeled by ADOT’s 

statewide travel demand model for 2050 

indicates peak-period travel times 

would increase by over 100 percent for 

most trips, resulting in lost time and 

productivity. For example, the duration 

of a trip from Phoenix to Tucson— 

which now takes approximately 95 

minutes—would increase to nearly 51⁄2

hours by 2050, assuming drivers are 

willing to travel that long to cover the 

distance between the two urban areas. 

This also assumes I–10 has been 

widened to as many as ten lanes during 

this period, indicating the need for 

parallel transportation options along the 

I–10 corridor. Further, the continued 

and growing demand to use I–10 as the 

primary intercity and commuter route in 

the corridor will contribute to growing 

congestion, reduced capacity, and 

reduced dependability on the facility. 

In lieu of increasing capacity through 

continued highway widening, rail 

would facilitate mobility within existing 

and future travel markets by providing 

additional transportation capacity using 

an additional dependable travel mode. 

Need for Commuter Mobility 

By 2050, the employment and 

population makeup of the Sun Corridor 

will be substantially different than it is 

in 2011, and as a result, the Sun 

Corridor is projected to become one of 

the expansive urban areas across the 

United States that will account for the 

majority of the country’s future growth. 

In 2050, while the Phoenix and Tucson 

areas will continue as major population 

and employment centers, the area 

between Phoenix and Tucson will 

experience tremendous population and 

employment growth, creating a singular 

urbanized corridor in the three counties. 

With a projected population nearing 12 

million people by 2050, the urbanized 

corridor will be characterized by dense 

employment and population centers in 

and around Phoenix and Tucson and 

similar population and employment 

centers in western Pinal County, 

generally along high-capacity 

transportation corridors. 

Statewide, Arizona’s population is 

projected to more than double in the 

next 40 years, from 6.4 million to 16 

million, with most development 

resulting from growth occurring within 

the Sun Corridor region. Forecasted 

population change in the Sun Corridor 

is summarized below. Between the years 

2009 and 2050: 

• Maricopa County population is 

projected to increase by 90 percent from 

4,023,000 to 7,622,700. 

• Pima County population is 

projected to increase by 96 percent from 

1,018,000 to 1,990,300. 

• Pinal County population is 

projected to increase by 494 percent 

from 356,000 to 2,113,000—the highest 

growth rate of any identified 

megapolitan region in the nation. 

Employment growth projections for 

the same three-county area in the next 

40 years are even more dramatic. From 

2009 to 2050: 

• Maricopa County employment is 

projected to increase by 132 percent. 

• Pima County population is 

projected to increase by 87 percent. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Notices 62147 

• Pinal County employment is 

projected to increase by 850 percent. 

The substantial new population and 

employment in Pinal County between 

the existing major urban areas will be 

distinguished by its focus on highdensity activity centers in accordance 

with the region’s long-range planning 

objectives. The redistribution of 

employment and population towards 

the center of the Sun Corridor will add 

to existing commuter and intercity 

mobility needs in the region. Within the 

planning horizon, commuter mobility to 

activity centers in Pinal County from 

Maricopa and Pima Counties will make 

up a substantial portion of the overall 

region’s mobility needs. Further, the 

overall increase in travel demand within 

the corridor will further burden an 

already capacity-deficient system. 

III. Alternatives To Be Considered 

This study will satisfy the 

requirements of NEPA as well as FTA 

requirements for an Alternative 

Analysis that will permit consideration 

for New Starts funding. Under the New 

Starts Program, alternatives for 

consideration in the Alternatives 

Analysis process will include: 

• A No-build alternative (also known 

as no-action: future condition in the 

study area implementing only currently 

approved transportation plans), 

• A Baseline alternative (future 

condition in the study area without the 

proposed high-capacity guideway 

improvements and implementing only 

transportation systems management 

[TSM] type improvements), and 

• Build alternatives to address the 

need of passenger rail service between 

Tucson, Arizona and Phoenix, Arizona. 

A range of conceptual alignments by 

segment, alternative endpoints, and 

modes/technologies that have been 

identified in previous plans and studies 

have been proposed to constitute the 

potential build alternatives. However, 

alignment concepts specific to this 

study area will be further defined 

during scoping and the alternatives 

development process. Definition of 

compatible local transit systems to serve 

as a complement to the Build network 

would be part of alternatives 

development. Build alternatives will 

need to address the need for both 

intercity mobility and commuter 

mobility, and could potentially include 

the pairing of any combination of 

alignments and endpoints to define an 

overall alternative. Each alternative as 

defined would have independent utility 

to serve the mobility needs in the 

corridor as defined by the project need 

(See Section II). 

IV. Probable Effects 

The FRA, FTA, and ADOT will 

evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative 

changes to the social, economic, and 

physical environment—including land 

use and socioeconomic conditions, 

ecology, water resources, historic and 

archaeological resources, visual 

character and aesthetics, contaminated 

and hazardous materials, transportation, 

air quality, noise and vibration, and 

environmental justice. The analysis will 

be undertaken consistent with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations defined previously, Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water 

Act, FRA’s Environmental Procedures, 

FTA regulations, ADOT guidance, and 

Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, along with 

other applicable Federal and state 

regulations in the level of detail 

appropriate for a Tier 1 EIS. 

V. Scoping Process 

FRA, FTA, and ADOT invite all 

interested individuals, organizations, 

Native American groups, and Federal, 

state, and local agencies to comment on 

the scope of the Tier 1 EIS. Comments 

are invited from all interested agencies 

and the public to ensure the full range 

of issues related to the Tier 1 EIS are 

addressed and all significant issues are 

identified. In particular, FRA, FTA, and 

ADOT are interested in identifying areas 

of environmental concern where there 

might be a potential for significant 

impacts. Public agencies with 

jurisdiction are requested to advise 

FRA, FTA, and ADOT of the applicable 

permit and environmental review 

requirements of each agency, and the 

scope and content of the environmental 

information that is germane to the 

agency’s statutory responsibilities in 

connection with the proposed action. 

Public agencies are requested to advise 

FRA, FTA, and ADOT if they anticipate 

taking a major action in connection with 

the proposed action and if they wish to 

cooperate in the preparation of the Tier 

1 EIS. 

Comments are encouraged on specific 

social, economic, or environmental 

issues to be evaluated, and on 

reasonable alternatives that may be less 

costly, more cost-effective, or have 

fewer environmental or community 

impacts while achieving similar 

transportation objectives. 

ADOT will be leading the outreach 

activities during the public scoping 

process, beginning with the scoping 

meetings identified under DATES above. 

Following the public scoping process, 

public outreach activities will include 

meetings with the regional Corridor 

Support Teams established for the 

study, as well as meetings with 

interested parties or small groups. Those 

wishing to participate in one of the 

Corridor Support Teams may do so by 

registering on the project Web site at 

http://www.azdot.gov/intercityrail. 

The scoping meetings described in 

this notice will also be the subject of 

additional public notification including 

periodic updates to the project Web site 

to reflect the project’s status. In 

addition, newsletters will be circulated 

to a broad constituency to ensure people 

are informed about the proposed action. 

Additional opportunities for public 

participation will be announced through 

mailings, notices, advertisements, and 

press releases. 

VI. FTA New Starts Process 

Federal transit law requires that the 

transit alternatives proposed for New 

Starts funding undergo an evaluation 

separate from the NEPA evaluation. The 

New Starts evaluation considers 

national criteria that are used to 

compare projects across the nation 

competing for New Starts funding. 

These criteria include: Cost, costeffectiveness, transit system user 

benefits, economic development effects, 

operating efficiencies, environmental 

benefits, transit-supportive land use 

patterns served by the project, the 

financial plan for building the project, 

the financial plan for operating the 

resulting transit system, and the size of 

the state or local financial commitment 

to the project. FTA provides detailed 

guidance on how to perform this 

analysis and oversees its execution 

closely. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, 

in part, to minimize the cost to the 

taxpayer of the creation, collection, 

maintenance, use, dissemination, and 

disposition of information. Consistent 

with this goal and with principles of 

economy and efficiency in government, 

it is the policy of FRA and FTA to limit 

insofar as possible distribution of 

complete printed sets of environmental 

documents. Accordingly, unless a 

specific written request for a complete 

printed set of environmental documents 

is received by the close of the scoping 

process by the Contact identified under 

ADDRESSES, the FRA, FTA, and ADOT 

will distribute only the executive 

summary and a Compact Disc (CD) of 

the complete environmental document. 

A complete printed set of the 

environmental document will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

62148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Notices 

available for review at ADOT’s offices 

and select repositories; an electronic 

copy of the complete environmental 

document will also be available on the 

project Web site: http://www.azdot.gov/ 

intercityrail. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 3, 

2011. 

Mark E. Yachmetz, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy 

and Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

Leslie T. Rogers, 

Regional Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25885 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket FTA–2011–0054; Docket FTA–2011– 

0055] 

Title VI; Proposed Circular, 

Environmental Justice; Proposed 

Circular 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the date 

for the Detroit public information 

session and corrects the sponsorship of 

the FTA information sessions, as 

published in the September 29, 2011, 

Federal Register Notices titled ‘‘Title VI; 

Proposed Circular’’ and ‘‘Environmental 

Justice; Proposed Circular.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program questions, Amber Ontiveros, 

Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone: 

(202) 366–4018, fax: (202) 366–3809, or 

e-mail, Amber.Ontiveros@dot.gov. For 

legal questions, Bonnie Graves, Office of 

Chief Counsel, same address, phone: 

(202) 366–4011, or e-mail, 

Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice corrects the date for the Detroit 

public information session and corrects 

the sponsorship of the FTA information 

sessions, as published in the September 

29, 2011, Federal Register Notices titled 

‘‘Title VI; Proposed Circular’’ (76 FR 

60593) and ‘‘Environmental Justice; 

Proposed Circular’’ (76 FR 60590). 

Corrections 

The Detroit public information 

session will not be held on November 9, 

2011. The new date is Thursday, 

November 3, 2011. Please visit FTA’s 

Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov for 

information regarding the exact 

location. The time is the same: 6 p.m.– 

9 p.m. 

FTA is the sole sponsor of the 

scheduled information sessions. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

September, 2011. 

Peter Rogoff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25878 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[NHTSA 2011–0147] 

Information Collection Activities: 

Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Request for Comment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted 

below will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. The ICR describes the nature of 

the information collection and its 

expected burden. A Federal Register 

notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting public comments on the 

following information collection was 

published on December 22, 2010 (75 FR 

80542). 

DATES: Submit comments to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before November 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Walter Culbreath and Stephanie Purnell, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

(NPO 400), National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, W51–204, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, (202) 366–1566. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: 

Generic Clearance for the Collection of 

Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service 

Delivery. 

Form No.: None. 

Type of Review: New information 

request. 

Respondents: State and local agencies, 

general public and stake holders, safety 

organizations and advocate groups. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

113,582. 

Estimated Time per Response: Range 

from 10–120 minutes. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 20,204. 

Frequency of Collection: Generally, on 

an annual basis. 

Abstract: NHTSA develops, promotes 

and implements effective educational, 

engineering, and enforcement programs 

toward ending preventable tragedies 

and reducing economic costs associated 

with vehicle use and highway travel. 

Executive Order 12862 mandates that 

agencies survey their customers to 

identify the kind and quality of services 

they want and their level of satisfaction 

with existing services. Other 

requirements include the Governmental 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 

1993 which promotes a new focus on 

results, service quality, and customer 

satisfaction. As NHTSA continuously 

works to ensure that its programs are 

effective and meet its customer’s needs, 

NHTSA seeks to obtain OMB approval 

of a generic clearance to collect 

qualitative feedback from its customers 

on NHTSA service delivery. Surveys 

will be undertaken to understand 

customer needs, satisfaction with 

products and services, perspectives on 

highway safety problems, forecast safety 

trends and achieve the agency’s goals. 

This feedback will provide insight into 

customer or stakeholder perception, 

provide an early warning of issues with 

products or services, and focus attention 

on areas of communication in 

operations that might improve the 

delivery of products or services. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the burden estimate, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for 

Department of Transportation, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Docket 

Library, Room 10102, Washington, DC 

20503, or by e-mail at 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax: 

202–395–5806. 

Comments Are Invited On: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department of 

Transportation, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES